From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 22 2002 - 17:08:09 GMT
Matt:
I just don't see the problem. By analogy, I emerged from my mother, but am
quite distinct from her. The intellect emerged from the mythos, but is quite
distinct from it. No problem. Even in ZAMM Pirsig certainly recognizes that
a very important shift in consciousness was happened around Plato's time.
The fact that he later, in Lila, describes that shift as the beginning of a
whole new level of reality only strengthens the distinction and serves to
explain so many conflicts and confusions in our world. Did you see
yesterday's batch of quotes from Pirsig, Campbell and others? Please take a
look at that. I hope to add some comments to help put them together, but
they almost stand on their own. The point I'll be trying to convey is that
logos not only emerged out of the mythos, in Plato's day the heart of the
project was about explaining the myths in a way that makes sense to the
philosophers. Their intellectual activity was focused on their myths. It was
a spiritual project. Hopefully this will help to show the relationship
between mythos and logos. Please stay tuned.
DMB
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin [mailto:mpkundert@students.wisc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 9:12 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: MD Systematic about the Sophists
DMB,
In answer to the dilemma I posed, you chose to follow Bo in repudiating
that bit of ZMM or, rather, translating it or updating it or, dare I say,
strongly misreading it. This is, obviously, perfectly exceptable.
However, I don't think you've fully realized the consequences of your
choice.
I said before that, "the mythos-over-logos argument is the argument for
continuity between Reason and Myth, logos and mythos, dialectic and
rhetoric." As I understand, that's what the argument represents. No
discrete break. The MoQ argues for a discrete break. So, I agree when you
say, "There really is no problem with the logos being BOTH emergent from
and different than the mythos." Certainly. Never claimed there was. I
said, "Indeed, there isn't a problem with emergence. Its when the
mythos-over-logos argument continues by saying, 'Thus, logos is simply a
continuation of the mythos,' that a problem emerges." The MoQ can say that
logos is emergent from the mythos. That's not controversial. That was the
typical interpretation offered by the Greeks all the way to the present
until people started offering the mythos-over-logos argument in contrast to
the usual interpretation. The interpretation that the MoQ offers is
essentially logos-over-mythos. The Intellect level is morally superior to
the Social level. The mythos-over-logos interpretation says that neither
is morally superior over the other.
On the interpretation you wish to give, I think you must get rid of the
mythos-over-logos argument because it simply does not fit. Pirsig would've
been right if he had said that the MoQ agrees with the mythos-over-logos
thesis INSOFAR as the logos and intellect level are emergent out of the
mythos and social level, respectively. But that assertion isn't really the
core of the mythos-over-logos argument. The "mythos OVER logos" part is.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 22 2002 - 17:09:22 GMT